PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS.

CESARIO MONTAÑEZ AND DANIEL SUMAYLO,

CESARIO MONTAÑEZ, APPELLANT
G.R. No. 148257; March 17, 2004
FACTS:
A certain Perlito Ollanes (Perlito) was shot on the night of 20 July 1993. His brother, Edmundo
Ollanes (Edmundo), heard that the gunshot came from the direction of Perlito’s house. Edmundo
immediately went to check on his brother. Edmundo saw that his brother was lying down, facing the
ground. When Edmundo lifted his brother, he saw that his brother was fatally shot and Perlito was on
the verge of death. Edmundo asked Perlito who shot him and the latter told Edmundo appellant Cesario
Montañez’s name three times. Joven Hintogaya, another witness presented by the prosecution
corroborated Edmundo’s testimonies. Daniel Sumaylo on the other hand confessed that he and
appellant conspired to kill Perlito. Montañez was the one, who actually shot Perlito, and according to
the adduced evidence, before Perlito was shot, he was not given the chance to defend himself; hence
treachery was present in killing Perlito.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) held on September 19, 1995, that Montañez is guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder as principal by direct participation. Sumaylo is guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide. Appellant filed for a motion for reconsideration. The court
issued an order on November 17, 1995 partially granting the motion and convicting the appellant of
murder, but only as an accomplice. The appellant appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals. The
CA reversed the decision of RTC and reinstated its September 19, 1995 decision; hence, this appeal.
ISSUE:
Is the Court of Appeals correct?
RULING:
Yes. A reading of the prosecution’s evidence shows that CESARIO is a principal by direct
participation in the killing of PERLITO.
The incriminating circumstantial evidence that point to CESARIO as the perpetrator of the
crime are the following: 
(1) After a shot was heard, JOVEN saw PERLITO fall to the ground and thereafter, JOVEN saw
CESARIO approached PERLITO, drop a piece of paper beside him and leave immediately; 
(2) At that time, CESARIO was seen carrying a firearm in his right arm; and 
(3) A few moments later, EDMUNDO arrived and found out that PERLITO sustained a gunshot
wound in his chest. Upon inquiry, PERLITO answered, three (3) times, that it was CESARIO who shot
him. JOVEN saw them conversing but he could not hear what they were talking about. 
Since the prosecution witnesses had no motive whatsoever to falsify the truth and impute to
CESARIO the commission of so grave an offense, the foregoing circumstances cannot be seriously
disputed. The combination of the foregoing circumstances is sufficient to establish the guilt of
CESARIO beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder as principal by direct participation.
The appeal was dismissed.